this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
287 points (100.0% liked)

196

16216 readers
3202 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (6 children)

What do you have to look like to achieve more than a 7? A biblically accurate angel?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

Totally would hit that.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Yes. Specifically this one

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Too many eyes but not fat or disfigured. 4/10.

The whole thing is designed to allow them to call people (especially women) "mid". They arbitrarily chose to use a gaussian distribution pattern so they had an excuse not to give anyone a score beyond 6s.

But real answer is be a hugely successful fashion model who the sub creator found attractive. Then their "objective rating standards" would include arbitrary criteria to bundle your face in. The whole sub could be replaced with a trivial ML model if it were actually about just giving their "objective" ratings. The internal weights used by the ML model would make about as much sense as the crap spouted in the screenshot.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aren't biblically accurate angels androgynous?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They're fucked up is what they are. See above and also this

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

isn't there an angel in the bible that's supposed to look like that?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Do keep up, Jenkins 😛

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

sorry. I had a long day today.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

No worries lol, sorry if my snark was needlessly harsh 😁

[–] Shiggles 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is the tiniest, infinitesimal amount of value in the statement that, likely because of the way we’re all graded in school, we don’t really use the full range of a 1-10 scale for attractiveness, and are sorta only really saying ugly, mediocre, attractive, or model.

There is zero value in saying that that’s an issue and the solution is a psychopathic and dehumanizing system.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When it comes to looks, the only meaningful scale consist of a 0 (not attractive) and 1 (attractive). E.g., if a woman I am talking to doesn't find me attractive, there is zero practical difference between me looking like Chris Hemsworth or an ogre.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Duckduckgo doesn't seem to know what an ogre is..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apparently not. First Brave Search image for "Chris Hemsworth ogre":

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that's just disney paying for results that make their actors look good I guess.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, probably

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Biblically accurate angels are looking mighty fine though 👀

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

We must have very different criteria..